GUIDELILNES,
RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR SUPPLY OF CERTIFIED
COPY (IES) OF ANSWER BOOKS TO STUDENTS
http://www.icsi.edu/docs/
COMMITTED FOR THE GROWTH OF BUDDING PROFESSIONALS
Monday 27 February 2012
Sunday 26 February 2012
IMPORTANT NORTIFICATION
“PLAN YOUR NEXT STEP” - A Carrier Orientation Programme for CS Students
http://instituteforcorporateachievers.blogspot.in/2012/02/plan-your-next-step-carrier-orientation_9525.html
Last date for registration in Foundation and Executive program
of ICSI
GUIDELILNES, RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR
SUPPLY OF CERTIFIED COPY (IES) OF ANSWER
BOOKS TO STUDENTS
http://www.icsi.edu/docs/
Computer Training relating queries which is to be done by every
CS STUDENT
http://instituteforcorporateachievers.blogspot.in/2012/02/for-computer-training-relating-queries.htmlTraining Program of ICSI
In case any student has any query relating to training program of ICSI
http://instituteforcorporateachievers.blogspot.in/2012/02/training-program-of-icsi.htmlLIST OF PCS REGISTERED WITH ICSI ALONGWITH THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS TO IMPART TRAINING
http://instituteforcorporateachievers.blogspot.in/2012/02/list-of-pcs-email-registered-with-icsi.html
HOW TO CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM S.I.P.
http://instituteforcorporateachievers.blogspot.in/2012/02/exemption-from-sip.htmlAPPLICABILITY OF THE LATEST FINANCE ACT AND OTHER CHANGES FOR COMPANY SECRETARIES JUNE, 2012 EXAMINATION. APPLICABILITY OF THE LATEST FINANCE ACT AND OTHER CHANGES FOR COMPANY SECRETARIES JUNE, 2012 EXAMINATION.
http://instituteforcorporateachievers.blogspot.in/2012/02/applicability-of-latest-finance-act-and.html
NEW BATCH FOR C.S. FOUNDATION/EXECUTIVE/ PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS FOR JUNE 2012
http://instituteforcorporateachievers.blogspot.in/2012/02/new-batch-for-cs-foundationexecutive_21.html
Friday 24 February 2012
“PLAN YOUR NEXT STEP” - A Carrier Orientation Programme for CS Students
It’s an era of cut throat
competition. Every minute our challenges become tougher and goals difficult to
achieve. The only solution to this problem is perfect utilization of the clock
not even wasting a Micro-second.
For
other details, contact at-
0522-4011081, 9554279814,9935778867,9415010364
Or write to us at-
Ica_queiries@yahoo.co.in
Limited seats available….Book your seats so as to avoid last minute rush.. …. Hurry… Get Enrolled now!!
To help our Up-coming CS
students, a special Programme has been designed by ICA that they can plan their NEXT STEP.
SPEAKER
- CS MANOJ KUMAR BHAGAT, EX CHAIRMAN LUCKNOW CHAPTER OF NIRC
- CS ATUL RAWAT, an Associate Member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India having a master’s degree in Law. He is presently working with M/s Vindhyanchal Finlease Private Limited. He is a visiting faculty at the ICSI, IPM & several other leading Institutes where he lectures on Securities and Company Law and select areas of Management. He has also undertaken several training and development programmes.
OBJECTIVES OF OUR PROGRAMME
The objective of our
programme is to provide guidance to budding professional on the matter which needs immediate
attention for achievement of their goal such as
· Study Techniques
·
Learning and Writing skills in examinations
·
Information regarding referral books of various subjects
·
Examination Planning
·
Training
·
Add-on carrier options
·
Time Management
·
Personality Development
Duration: 2 Hours
Date: 28th Feb, 2012
Timings: 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM
Timings: 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM
FREE Registration.
* We initiated this programme on the request of the students
who often interact with us via various means and their problems go unheard or
unattended. ONLY Interested students shall Register their details along with
queries at the below mentioned link which will be kept confidential.
CS MANOJ KUMAR BHAGAT
CS ATUL RAWAT
0522-4011081, 9554279814,9935778867,9415010364
Or write to us at-
Ica_queiries@yahoo.co.in
Limited seats available….Book your seats so as to avoid last minute rush.. …. Hurry… Get Enrolled now!!
NEW BATCH FOR C.S. FOUNDATION/EXECUTIVE/ PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS FOR JUNE 2012
We are committed towards the growth of a Student
and in order to that we offer professional guidance through professionals i.e.
Company Secretaries, Charted Accountant, Cost Management Accountant so that u
can clear your exam in one go.
“We believe nothing is unachievable once we
determine to achieve it.”
INSTITUTE FOR CORPORATE ACHIEVERS (ICA) announces new batches- full time as well as Fast track for CS (Foundation)/ (Executive) & (FINAL) Students starting from 29TH Feb, 2012 & 2ND MARCH at Hazratganj Lucknow.
For
registration & other details, contact at-
INSTITUTE FOR CORPORATE ACHIEVERS
Chitrahar Building,
3rd Floor Naval Kishor
Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001.
Ph,(0522)-4011081, Mob, 9554279814,9935778867,9415010364
Or write to us at- Ica_queiries@yahoo.co.in
Limited seats available….Book your seats asap so as to avoid last minute rush.. …. Hurry… Get Enrolled now!!
Or write to us at- Ica_queiries@yahoo.co.in
Limited seats available….Book your seats asap so as to avoid last minute rush.. …. Hurry… Get Enrolled now!!
Thursday 23 February 2012
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Release of Foreign Exchange for Imports – Further Liberalisation
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Foreign Exchange Department
central Office,Mumbai - 400 001
RBI/2011-12/404 February 21, 2012
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 82
To
All Authorised Dealers in Foreign Exchange
Madam / Sir,
Release of Foreign Exchange for Imports – Further Liberalisation
1.Attention of all the Authorised Dealers (ADs) in foreign exchange is invited to the A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 106 dated June 19, 2003 in terms of which applications by persons, firms and companies for making payments, exceeding USD 500 or its equivalent towards imports into India must be made in Form A-1.
2. Based on suggestions received from the various stake holders, the said limit has been reviewed and it has been decided as a measure of liberalization to raise the above limit for foreign exchange remittance towards imports without any documentation formalities, from USD 500 or its equivalent to USD 5000 or its equivalent, with immediate effect.
3. It is clarified that the ADs need not obtain any document, including Form A-1, except a simple letter from the applicant containing the basic information viz., the name and the address of the applicant, name and address of the beneficiary, amount to be remitted and the purpose of remittance, as long as the exchange being purchased is for a current account transaction (and is not included in the Schedules I and II of the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000 framed by Government of India vide Notification No. G.S.R.381 (E) dated May 3, 2000, as amended from time to time, the amount does not exceed USD 5000 or its equivalent and the payment is made by a cheque drawn on the applicant's bank account or by a Demand Draft.
4. Authorised Dealers may bring the contents of this circular to the notice of their constituents and customers concerned.
5. The directions contained in this circular have been issued under Sections 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) and are without prejudice to permissions / approvals, if any, required under any other law.
Yours faithfully,
(Rashmi Fauzdar)
Chief General Manager
Foreign Exchange Department
central Office,Mumbai - 400 001
RBI/2011-12/404 February 21, 2012
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 82
To
All Authorised Dealers in Foreign Exchange
Madam / Sir,
Release of Foreign Exchange for Imports – Further Liberalisation
1.Attention of all the Authorised Dealers (ADs) in foreign exchange is invited to the A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 106 dated June 19, 2003 in terms of which applications by persons, firms and companies for making payments, exceeding USD 500 or its equivalent towards imports into India must be made in Form A-1.
2. Based on suggestions received from the various stake holders, the said limit has been reviewed and it has been decided as a measure of liberalization to raise the above limit for foreign exchange remittance towards imports without any documentation formalities, from USD 500 or its equivalent to USD 5000 or its equivalent, with immediate effect.
3. It is clarified that the ADs need not obtain any document, including Form A-1, except a simple letter from the applicant containing the basic information viz., the name and the address of the applicant, name and address of the beneficiary, amount to be remitted and the purpose of remittance, as long as the exchange being purchased is for a current account transaction (and is not included in the Schedules I and II of the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000 framed by Government of India vide Notification No. G.S.R.381 (E) dated May 3, 2000, as amended from time to time, the amount does not exceed USD 5000 or its equivalent and the payment is made by a cheque drawn on the applicant's bank account or by a Demand Draft.
4. Authorised Dealers may bring the contents of this circular to the notice of their constituents and customers concerned.
5. The directions contained in this circular have been issued under Sections 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) and are without prejudice to permissions / approvals, if any, required under any other law.
Yours faithfully,
(Rashmi Fauzdar)
Chief General Manager
Tuesday 21 February 2012
MERE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM DID NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME
MERE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM DID NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME
Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act provides that if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty which will not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Explanation 1 to Sec. 271(1) provides that where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act-
A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false; or
B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for this purposes be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed.
In 'National Textiles V. Commissioner of Income tax' - (2000 -TMI - 14310 - GUJARAT High Court] the Gujarat High Court observed that in order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist-
There must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable conclusion that the amount does represent the assessee's income. It is not enough for the purpose of the penalty that the amount has been assessed as income; and
The circumstances must show that there was animus i.e., conscious concealment or act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee.
The explanation has no bearing on factor No.1 but it has a bearing only on factor No.2 The explanation does not make the assessment order conclusive evidence that the amount assessed was in fact the income of the assessee. No penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee given an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e., it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee's case is false, the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee's case is false, the explanation cannot help the Department because there will be no material to show that the amount in question was the income of the assessee.
In 'Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax V. Raj Multiplex P. Limited' - (2010) 6 ITR (Trib) 76 (Ahmedabad) the assessee is a company which is running cinema theatre. The assessee, for the year under consideration, furnished the return of the income declaring business loss of Rs.1,00,92,940/-. The Assessing Officer determined the loss at Rs.63,31,606 after deducting excess claim of depreciation disallowed Rs.37,11,454 and deduction under Section 35D Rs.49,280/-. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above addition/disallowance. The assessee was held as guilty of concealment in respect of his claim.
The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the appellate authority the assessee contended the following-
The claim of depreciation at 15% was a clerical error. The written down value of building, furniture and fixtures was taken as single block and depreciation was claimed at 15% as against 10% allowance as per the Income tax rules;
In the earlier assessment year itself the depreciation was wrongly noted as 15% but the same was computed and claimed separately at 10%. The rate column was erroneously left unrectified. The rate of depreciation was not modified in the subsequent years but the same chart used for in the assessment year 2002-03 was taken into account in the present assessment year which resulted in an error in claiming deprecation;
Once the error was noticed the mistake was rectified in subsequent years by filing revised returns;
The company was running in heavy loses for the past years and it had accumulated unabsorbed losses and depreciation to the tune of over Rs.6 crores;
The company was also not having any taxable income as per Sec. 115. As such the error was inadvertent and the company was not going to derive any material benefit on account of the error;
The deductions under Section 35D was relating to pre-operative expenses incurred in 1999-2000 and similar claims were made and allowed in earlier assessments;
There is no justification for holding that the appellant was guilty of concealment in respect of the claim.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the facts pointed out by the appellant had made a mistake in adopting the correct rate of depreciation. This is a mistake apparent on record and the assessment order passed had only made the disallowance by correcting the mistake. The mistake, which is bona fide, did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Clarification furnished by the appellant in this regard is found to be genuine and accordingly Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(C) does not apply. As regards the disallowance of the claim of deduction under Sec. 35 D, it is noticed that similar deduction in respect of the very same expenses was allowed in the earlier assessment years. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the mere disallowance of the claim did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellate authority thus held that the levy of penalty is found to be not justified.
Aggrieved with the order of the appellate authority the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the findings of the lower authorities held that it did not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The reduction in the returned loss was mainly on account of reduction in the claim of depreciation. The assessee had claimed in the depreciation on the cinema theatre at 15% which in fact allowance at 10%. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee itself had furnished the revised chart and worked out that the depreciation claimed by it was higher by Rs.37,11,454. The explanation of the assessee given before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the written down value of building, furniture and fixtures was taken as a single block by mistake and due to clerical error the depreciation was claimed at 15% seems plausible. In the year under appeal, the assessee had a loss of more than rupees one crore and even after the disallowance made by the Assessing officer, assessed a loss of Rs.63.31 lakhs. The assessee already had carried forward business loss and depreciation over Rs.6 crores. In the above circumstances there could not be any motive to claim more depreciation. The tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act provides that if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty which will not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Explanation 1 to Sec. 271(1) provides that where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act-
A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false; or
B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for this purposes be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed.
In 'National Textiles V. Commissioner of Income tax' - (2000 -TMI - 14310 - GUJARAT High Court] the Gujarat High Court observed that in order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist-
There must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable conclusion that the amount does represent the assessee's income. It is not enough for the purpose of the penalty that the amount has been assessed as income; and
The circumstances must show that there was animus i.e., conscious concealment or act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee.
The explanation has no bearing on factor No.1 but it has a bearing only on factor No.2 The explanation does not make the assessment order conclusive evidence that the amount assessed was in fact the income of the assessee. No penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee given an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e., it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee's case is false, the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee's case is false, the explanation cannot help the Department because there will be no material to show that the amount in question was the income of the assessee.
In 'Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax V. Raj Multiplex P. Limited' - (2010) 6 ITR (Trib) 76 (Ahmedabad) the assessee is a company which is running cinema theatre. The assessee, for the year under consideration, furnished the return of the income declaring business loss of Rs.1,00,92,940/-. The Assessing Officer determined the loss at Rs.63,31,606 after deducting excess claim of depreciation disallowed Rs.37,11,454 and deduction under Section 35D Rs.49,280/-. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above addition/disallowance. The assessee was held as guilty of concealment in respect of his claim.
The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the appellate authority the assessee contended the following-
The claim of depreciation at 15% was a clerical error. The written down value of building, furniture and fixtures was taken as single block and depreciation was claimed at 15% as against 10% allowance as per the Income tax rules;
In the earlier assessment year itself the depreciation was wrongly noted as 15% but the same was computed and claimed separately at 10%. The rate column was erroneously left unrectified. The rate of depreciation was not modified in the subsequent years but the same chart used for in the assessment year 2002-03 was taken into account in the present assessment year which resulted in an error in claiming deprecation;
Once the error was noticed the mistake was rectified in subsequent years by filing revised returns;
The company was running in heavy loses for the past years and it had accumulated unabsorbed losses and depreciation to the tune of over Rs.6 crores;
The company was also not having any taxable income as per Sec. 115. As such the error was inadvertent and the company was not going to derive any material benefit on account of the error;
The deductions under Section 35D was relating to pre-operative expenses incurred in 1999-2000 and similar claims were made and allowed in earlier assessments;
There is no justification for holding that the appellant was guilty of concealment in respect of the claim.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the facts pointed out by the appellant had made a mistake in adopting the correct rate of depreciation. This is a mistake apparent on record and the assessment order passed had only made the disallowance by correcting the mistake. The mistake, which is bona fide, did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Clarification furnished by the appellant in this regard is found to be genuine and accordingly Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(C) does not apply. As regards the disallowance of the claim of deduction under Sec. 35 D, it is noticed that similar deduction in respect of the very same expenses was allowed in the earlier assessment years. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the mere disallowance of the claim did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellate authority thus held that the levy of penalty is found to be not justified.
Aggrieved with the order of the appellate authority the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the findings of the lower authorities held that it did not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The reduction in the returned loss was mainly on account of reduction in the claim of depreciation. The assessee had claimed in the depreciation on the cinema theatre at 15% which in fact allowance at 10%. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee itself had furnished the revised chart and worked out that the depreciation claimed by it was higher by Rs.37,11,454. The explanation of the assessee given before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the written down value of building, furniture and fixtures was taken as a single block by mistake and due to clerical error the depreciation was claimed at 15% seems plausible. In the year under appeal, the assessee had a loss of more than rupees one crore and even after the disallowance made by the Assessing officer, assessed a loss of Rs.63.31 lakhs. The assessee already had carried forward business loss and depreciation over Rs.6 crores. In the above circumstances there could not be any motive to claim more depreciation. The tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Applicability of the latest Finance Act and other changes for Company Secretaries June, 2012 Examination.
ATTENTION STUDENTS!
Applicability of the latest
Finance Act and other changes for Company Secretaries June, 2012 Examination.
DIRECT TAXES
All students may note that for the June 2012
Examination Session in respect of Direct Taxes the applicable Assessment Year
shall be 2012-13 (Previous Year 2011-12). Thus, they will have to study Finance
Act, 2011 for June 2012 Examination. Further as per the Syllabus, (of Executive
Programme and Professional Programme) students are required to update
themselves about all the Circulars, Clarifications, Notifications, etc., issued
by the CBDT & Central Government, which come into effect on or before six
months prior to the date of the respective examinations.
Gift Tax Act has been excluded from the scope of
the examination from June 1999 session onwards unless otherwise informed.
INDIRECT TAXES
Students appearing in the ‘Tax Laws’ (Indirect Tax
Portion to the extent of topics covered in the syllabus, of ‘Executive
Programme’) and Advanced Tax Laws and Practice (Professional Programme)
respectively may take note of the following changes applicable for June 2012
Examination.
1. All changes made by the Finance Act, 2011.
2. All Circulars, Clarifications/Notifications
issued by CBEC / Central Government which became effective six months prior to
the date of examination.
NEW SYLLABUS FOR CS FOUNDATION
For all queries relating to paper-wise exemption and switchover to new syllabus , students can visit
http://www.icsi.edu/WebModules/Student/FoundationNewSyllabus.pdf
NEW BATCH FOR C.S. FOUNDATION/EXECUTIVE/ PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS FOR JUNE 2012
NEW BATCH FOR C.S. FOUNDATION/EXECUTIVE/ PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS FOR JUNE 2012
We are committed towards the growth of a Student and in order to that we offer professional guidance through professionals i.e. Company Secretaries, Charted Accountant, Cost Management Accountant so that u can clear your exam in one go.
We are committed towards the growth of a Student and in order to that we offer professional guidance through professionals i.e. Company Secretaries, Charted Accountant, Cost Management Accountant so that u can clear your exam in one go.
INSTITUTE FOR CORPORATE ACHIEVERS (ICA) announces new batches- both full time as well as Fast track for CS (Foundation)/(Executive) & (FINAL) Students starting from 29TH Feb, 2012 & 2ND MARCH at Hazratganj Lucknow.
For registration & other details, contact at-
0522-4011081
9554279814
9935778867
9415010364
Or write to us at-
Ica_queiries@yahoo.co.in
Limited seats available….Book your seats asap so as to avoid last minute rush.. …. Hurry… Get Enrolled now!!
Monday 20 February 2012
Sunday 19 February 2012
CBDT exempts return-filing for salaried having total income upto Rs 5 lakh NOTIFICATION NO 9/2012, Dated: February 17, 2012
CBDT exempts return-filing for salaried having total income upto Rs 5 lakh
NOTIFICATION NO 9/2012, Dated: February 17, 2012
In exercise of the power conferred by
sub-section (IC) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of
1961), the Central Government hereby exempts the following class of
persons, subject to the conditions specified
hereinafter, from the requirement of furnishing a return of income
under sub-section (1) of section 139 for the assessment year 2012-13,
namely:-
1. Class of persons.-
An Individual whose total income for the relevant assessment year does
not exceed five lakh rupees and consists of only income chargeable to
income-tax under the following head,-
(A) “Salaries”;
(B) “Income from other sources”, by way of interest from a saving account in a bank, not exceeding ten thousand rupees.
2. Conditions,- The individual referred to in para 1,-
i) has reported to his employer his permanent Account Number (PAN);
ii) has reported to his employer, the incomes mentioned in sub-para (B) of para I and the employer has deducted the tax thereon;
iii) has received a certificate to of
tax deduction in Form 16 from his employer which mentions the PAN,
details of income and the tax deducted at source and deposited to the
credit of the Central Government;
iv) has discharged his total tax
liability for the assessment year through tax deduction at source and
its deposit by the employer to the Central Government;
v) has no claim of refund of taxes due to him for the income of the assessment year, and
vi) has received salary from only one employer for the assessment year.
3. The exemption from the requirement of
furnishing a return of income tax shall not be available where a notice
under section 142 (1) or section 148 or section 153A or section 153C of
the incometax Act has been issued for filing a return of income for the
relevant assessment year.
4. This notification shall come into force from the date its publication in the Official Gazette.
F.No.225/283/2011-ITA (II)
(Ajay Goyal)Director (ITA-II)
Friday 17 February 2012
Wednesday 15 February 2012
NEW BATCH FOR CS FOUNDATION 2012
INSTITUTE FOR CORPORATE ACHIEVERS
BATCH OF CS FOUNDATION FOR
JUNE 2012 EXAMS
GOING SUCCESSFULLY
DAYS- MON-WED-FRIDAY- (ENGLISH AND ACCOUNTS)
TUE-THUR-SAT- (ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS LAW AND MANAGEMENT)
THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE FOR THE STUDENTS TO CLEAR EXAMS WITH PREVIOUS SYLLABUS AS NOW THE INSTITUTE HAS INTRODUCED NEW SYLLABUS FROM 1ST FEB. 2012
FOR DETAILS CONTACT:
AT 3RD FLOOR, CHITRAHAR BUILDING, NAVAL KISHORE ROAD, HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW. PH: 05224011081, MOB: 9935778867, 8687113270
BATCH OF CS FOUNDATION FOR
JUNE 2012 EXAMS
GOING SUCCESSFULLY
DAYS- MON-WED-FRIDAY- (ENGLISH AND ACCOUNTS)
TUE-THUR-SAT- (ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS LAW AND MANAGEMENT)
THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE FOR THE STUDENTS TO CLEAR EXAMS WITH PREVIOUS SYLLABUS AS NOW THE INSTITUTE HAS INTRODUCED NEW SYLLABUS FROM 1ST FEB. 2012
FOR DETAILS CONTACT:
AT 3RD FLOOR, CHITRAHAR BUILDING, NAVAL KISHORE ROAD, HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW. PH: 05224011081, MOB: 9935778867, 8687113270
LIST OF COMPANIES REGISTERED WITH ICSI NIRC TO IMPART TRAINING
CNB Finwiz (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
302-303, EMCA House Training
23/23B, Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi-110002
Escorts Securities Ltd. 15 and 03 Suitable
11, Scindia House Months
Connaught Circus Practical
New Delhi-110001 Training
Conrad Tele-Films Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
B-235, Naraina Industrial Area Training
Phase-I, New Delhi-110028
Rockland Hospitals Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
B-207, Chittranjan Park Training
New Delhi-110019
Corporate Trust (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
19, 1st Floor, Feroze Gandhi Training
Market, Ludhiana-141001
BDP Architecture Design 15 Months 5000-6000
Engineering (P.) Ltd. Training
L-20, Green Park (Main)
New Delhi-110016
Quippo Energy (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
D-2, 5th Floor, Southern Park Training
Saket Place, Saket
New Delhi-110017
Jammu & Kashmir State Power 15 and 03 Suitable
Development Corporation Ltd. Months
Ashok Nagar, Satwari Practical
Jammu-180004 J&K Training
FCI Aravali Gypsum and 15 and 03 Suitable
Genesis Colors (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
51-52, Udyog Vihar Training
Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122001
Radcliffe Schools Education 15 and 03 Suitable
(P.) Ltd., A-41, M.C.I.E., Months
Mathura Road, New Practical
Delhi-110044 Training
C & S Electric Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
222, Okhla Industrial Estate Training
Phase-III, New Delhi-110020
Dainichi Color India (P.) Ltd. 15 and 03 Suitable
5 th Floor, Lotus Towers Months
Community Centre, New Practical
Friends Colony
New Delhi – 110065
Interlink Petroleum Ltd. 15 and 03 7000
H-20, Sector 27 Months Practical
Noida-201301, UP. Training
Trimurty Landcon (India) 15 and 03 Suitable
(P.) Ltd., 601, Geeta Enclave Months
G-8, Vinoba Marg, C-Scheme Practical
Minerals India Ltd. Months
Mangu Singh Rajvi Marg Practical
(Paota “B” Road), Jodhpur Training
Rajasthan
OCL India Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
17 th Floor, Narain Manzil Training
23, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi-110001
Lambda Televenture (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
475, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V Training
Gurgaon-122015, Haryana
Miraj Developers (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
1st Floor, Miraj House Training
Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
Sona Management Services Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
UGF-6 Indra Prakash
21 Barakhamba Road
New Delhi – 110 001
Halonix Ltd.
59-A, NSEZ, Phase –II Training
Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh
Nagar-201305
302-303, EMCA House Training
23/23B, Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi-110002
Escorts Securities Ltd. 15 and 03 Suitable
11, Scindia House Months
Connaught Circus Practical
New Delhi-110001 Training
Conrad Tele-Films Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
B-235, Naraina Industrial Area Training
Phase-I, New Delhi-110028
Rockland Hospitals Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
B-207, Chittranjan Park Training
New Delhi-110019
Corporate Trust (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
19, 1st Floor, Feroze Gandhi Training
Market, Ludhiana-141001
BDP Architecture Design 15 Months 5000-6000
Engineering (P.) Ltd. Training
L-20, Green Park (Main)
New Delhi-110016
Quippo Energy (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
D-2, 5th Floor, Southern Park Training
Saket Place, Saket
New Delhi-110017
Jammu & Kashmir State Power 15 and 03 Suitable
Development Corporation Ltd. Months
Ashok Nagar, Satwari Practical
Jammu-180004 J&K Training
FCI Aravali Gypsum and 15 and 03 Suitable
Genesis Colors (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
51-52, Udyog Vihar Training
Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122001
Radcliffe Schools Education 15 and 03 Suitable
(P.) Ltd., A-41, M.C.I.E., Months
Mathura Road, New Practical
Delhi-110044 Training
C & S Electric Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
222, Okhla Industrial Estate Training
Phase-III, New Delhi-110020
Dainichi Color India (P.) Ltd. 15 and 03 Suitable
5 th Floor, Lotus Towers Months
Community Centre, New Practical
Friends Colony
New Delhi – 110065
Interlink Petroleum Ltd. 15 and 03 7000
H-20, Sector 27 Months Practical
Noida-201301, UP. Training
Trimurty Landcon (India) 15 and 03 Suitable
(P.) Ltd., 601, Geeta Enclave Months
G-8, Vinoba Marg, C-Scheme Practical
Minerals India Ltd. Months
Mangu Singh Rajvi Marg Practical
(Paota “B” Road), Jodhpur Training
Rajasthan
OCL India Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
17 th Floor, Narain Manzil Training
23, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi-110001
Lambda Televenture (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
475, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V Training
Gurgaon-122015, Haryana
Miraj Developers (P.) Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
1st Floor, Miraj House Training
Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
Sona Management Services Ltd. 15 Months Suitable
UGF-6 Indra Prakash
21 Barakhamba Road
New Delhi – 110 001
Halonix Ltd.
59-A, NSEZ, Phase –II Training
Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh
Nagar-201305
Tuesday 14 February 2012
Applicability of the latest Finance Act and other changes for Company Secretaries June, 2012 Examination. Applicability of the latest Finance Act and other changes for Company Secretaries June, 2012 Examination.
ATTENTION STUDENTS!
Applicability of the latest Finance Act and other changes for Company Secretaries June, 2012 Examination.
DIRECT TAXES
All students may note that for the June 2012 Examination Session in respect of Direct Taxes the applicable Assessment Year shall be 2012-13 (Previous Year 2011-12).
Thus, they will have to study Finance Act, 2011 for June 2012 Examination.
Further as per the Syllabus, (of Executive Programme and Professional Programme) students are required to update themselves about all the Circulars, Clarifications, Notifications, etc., issued by the CBDT & Central Government, which come into effect on or before six months prior to the date of the respective examinations.
Gift Tax Act has been excluded from the scope of the examination from June 1999 session onwards unless otherwise informed.
INDIRECT TAXES
Students appearing in the ‘Tax Laws’ (Indirect Tax Portion to the extent of topics covered in the syllabus, of ‘Executive Programme’) and Advanced Tax Laws and Practice (Professional Programme) respectively may take note of the following changes applicable for June 2012 Examination.
1. All changes made by the Finance Act, 2011.
2. All Circulars, Clarifications/Notifications issued by CBEC / Central Government which became effective six months prior to the date of examination.
COMPANY LAW/ CSP
Some my friends asking me,.that Companies Law bill 2011 is applicable for june 2012 exams,my dear friends, i already mention on my article
"Highlights of New Companies Bill, 2011" ,
are not applicable for june and May 2012 wxams of CS's, CA's and CWA's.
Applicability of the latest Finance Act and other changes for Company Secretaries June, 2012 Examination.
DIRECT TAXES
All students may note that for the June 2012 Examination Session in respect of Direct Taxes the applicable Assessment Year shall be 2012-13 (Previous Year 2011-12).
Thus, they will have to study Finance Act, 2011 for June 2012 Examination.
Further as per the Syllabus, (of Executive Programme and Professional Programme) students are required to update themselves about all the Circulars, Clarifications, Notifications, etc., issued by the CBDT & Central Government, which come into effect on or before six months prior to the date of the respective examinations.
Gift Tax Act has been excluded from the scope of the examination from June 1999 session onwards unless otherwise informed.
INDIRECT TAXES
Students appearing in the ‘Tax Laws’ (Indirect Tax Portion to the extent of topics covered in the syllabus, of ‘Executive Programme’) and Advanced Tax Laws and Practice (Professional Programme) respectively may take note of the following changes applicable for June 2012 Examination.
1. All changes made by the Finance Act, 2011.
2. All Circulars, Clarifications/Notifications issued by CBEC / Central Government which became effective six months prior to the date of examination.
COMPANY LAW/ CSP
Some my friends asking me,.that Companies Law bill 2011 is applicable for june 2012 exams,my dear friends, i already mention on my article
"Highlights of New Companies Bill, 2011" ,
are not applicable for june and May 2012 wxams of CS's, CA's and CWA's.
HUF with only Female Members - Can it done
HUF with only Female Members - Can it done?
by CA. Manoj Jain,B.Com, FCA, ISA (ICAI)
A Hindu widow being the sole surviving member, cannot constitute a HUF. Gangamma Vs. Agl. ITO (1991) 188 ITR 1 (Ker.).
However, after the Amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, in 2005, a Hindu Widow and her unmarried daughter can constitute a HUF, even when the widow had not adopted a son since, daughter is also a coparcener.
Question:- Whether a person with wife and two daughters only can have HUF?
Answer:- Whether only one male member is suffice to form an HUF is now legally well settled as per decision of Supreme Court in case of Gowli Buddana vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 293 . An HUF is no different than a joint property. The concept of HUF is very simple codified in Hindu law .A Hindu joint family consists of lineally descended persons -like Great Grand father, Grand father ,father, uncle, son etc. All these persons have right over common ancestral property by birth. The dictum that once Hindu undivided family always Hindu undivided family" has been accepted all along.
The expression `Hindu undivided family' in the Income-tax Act is same as a joint family which may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. In Dr Prakash B Sultane v CIT ([2005] 148 Taxman 353) the Bombay High Court held that that the property does not lose its character merely because at one point of time there was only one male member or one co-parcener.
In this case , the assessee was a doctor by profession assessable in his hands as an individual. The assessee was a member of a bigger Hindu undivided family which was partitioned on January 1, 1972. At the time of partition and right up to January 22, 1980 the assessee was a bachelor. During these years, the income from assets on partition was assessed in his hands as his individual income.
When the assessee got married on January 22, 1980, he claimed that the income from assets received on partition is assessable in status of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife.
The Assessing Officer observed that the decisions referred to by the assessee were considered in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya (142 I.T.R. 357). Relying upon this judgment, he rejected the application of the assessee and continued to assess his income from the Hindu undivided family property in his individual capacity. In the above case also, the assessee had obtained his share on partition before his marriage and, on his marriage, had claimed the status of Hindu undivided family. His claim was rejected on the ground that "until a son is born the status of the assessee would continue to be that of an individual. However, the High Court ruled otherwise and upheld the contention of the assessee that once HUF property always HUF property"
HUF without Females -A Single male coparcener without a female member does not constitute a HUF. The only way by which a single coparcener can constitute a HUF is to marry a woman. He and his wifewould constitute a HUF. Premkumar Vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 347 (All.)
Wife in a HUF: For Example, Mr.A / Mrs.A / Mr.B (Son) / Mr.C Daughter of a HUF, then Mrs. A wife of Mr.A is called a member only and not a coparcener. Hence, she cannot ask for partition but when the property is partitioned, she will get an equal share as that of a coparcener. Wife, not being a coparcener obviously cannot become a karta .
Widow in a HUF – With the passing of the HIndu Succession Act, 1956, widow has been designated as class I heir to male HIndu dying intestate. In case of sole surviving coparcener having only a wife but no issue the widow is entitled to succeed to the entire estate of her deceased husband, if he died intestate. The entire interest of the deceased in coparcenery will be part of the estate passing on the death of such person. Bhariben S. Jhaveri Vs. CED (1999) 238 ITR 995 (Guj.). When a Hindu Widow adopts a male heir, the HUF would be constituted by the Hindu widow along with the adopted son. C. Krishnaprasad Vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 493 (SC). After the Hindu Succession Act's amendment in 2005, even widows of predeceased sons are now legally entitled for inheriting the deceased's property even if they had remarried.
Females and Gift:A Female member (Wife) can gift her property so as to constitute it as HUF Property. CIT Vs. M. Balasubramanian (1990) 182 ITR 117 (Mad.)Daughters are now coparceners. Hence, now, they can throw their individual assets into Family Hotch Potch subject to the provisions of Sec.64(2).
SOFTWARE TAXABILITY
Discord on software taxability
The issue of taxability of payments for standard off-the-shelf software (shrink wrapped software) and consequent withholding tax implications on the same has been a contentious issue for a long time now. The issue has assumed interest in the recent past in light of conflicting rulings at various fora.
Typically, in case of standard software, the software package would be imported physically or downloaded through internet. Physically, the package would be in a CD and would have a licence attached to it. In case of internet download the licence is accessed through a Web site and downloaded by the user. In either case, the licence is provided more to protect the rights of the owner of software, though which the owner grants a right to use the software to a user for a price. A typical shrink wrapped software licence specifically prohibits any modification, re-engineering, etc.. It also generally provides that all intellectual property rights in the software are retained by the supplier/owner. The licence permits copying of the software in the hard disk of the user for use and back-up.
Globally, the ownership/intellectual property right in software is governed by copyright laws.
The controversy is whether the consideration paid for purchase of such standard software from overseas suppliers is taxable in India or not. The view of the Revenue Department is that the payments made for purchase of standard software tantamount to royalty and accordingly taxable in India. On the contrary, the position of taxpayers is that the purchase of standard software is akin to purchase of goods and, therefore, should not be taxed as royalty.
What is royalty?
Generally, royalty includes within its ambit payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, an artistic or a scientific work. This definition is interpreted by taxpayers to mean that royalty arises only in cases where payment is made for usage of the intellectual property right in the software. In view of the same, the argument put forth by taxpayers is that in case of standard software, the purchaser does not get any right in the ‘copyright' of the software and consequentially the payment is merely for purchase of ‘copyrighted article' and hence not subject to tax as royalty. This view is also advocated in the commentary by renowned authors and principles according to the international tax laws.
The position of the Revenue Department is that a licence to use the software tantamount to granting of licences for the use of the copyright in the software constituting royalty. The Tribunals in many cases (Sonata, Samsung, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, etc.) have held in favour of the taxpayer. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung and others overruled the Tribunal decisions and held the payments to be in the nature of royalty.
The Court's primary reason was that the right available to the purchaser to make a copy for back-up purposes would not have been available in absence of the licence and, therefore, the licence obtained is for the use of copyright. The Court did not concur with the contention of the taxpayer that the underlying rights available to a copyright holder are not passed in the case of a standard software and hence the payment should not be characterised as royalty. The Court did not consider the distinction between the payments for use of copyright and that for the use of a copyrighted article, which is a significant departure from the position laid down by Courts in some earlier decisions.
Divergent rulings
In contrast, the Delhi High Court in a recent case of Ericsson AB (delivered after the Karnataka High Court decision) has not concurred with the contention of the Revenue Department that a licence to use the software tantamount to usage of copyright and hence taxable as royalty. In this case the software was purchased as an integral part of the hardware.
The Delhi High Court held that where the software is integrated with the hardware and it merely facilitates the functioning of the hardware, the arrangement is for the contract for supply of goods and no part of the payment, therefore, can be classified as payment towards royalty. In laying down this proposition, the Court relied on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services, wherein the apex court had held that software which is incorporated in a medium should be treated as goods.
The issue of taxability of software is of paramount importance given that in today's technology-driven world, any organisation, big or small, use one or the other form of software. The ruling of the Karnataka High Court has a far-reaching impact for software companies given the high volume of software imports. Importers would endeavour to negotiate with software vendors and withhold tax on software imports. However, in most cases, the vendors are not too keen on deduction of tax considering the challenges in getting the foreign tax credit and other issues. Therefore, organisations in India have to bear additional costs.
Given the divergent rulings from Courts in States, the issue will be settled only at the Supreme Court where it is currently pending.
The controversy is whether the consideration paid for purchase of standard software from overseas suppliers is taxable in India or not.
(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated January 30, 2012)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)